Pertain to what? Sony has JRPG's and CoD (for at least another 10 years).
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Pertain to what? Sony has JRPG's and CoD (for at least another 10 years).
It's well known and documented. A quick Google search even brought out this IGN article originally posted in 1997. Sorry, rich kid Sony was doing what it could to ensure Sega couldn't compete. They were the rich kid in this scenario. If you are so concerned with not rooting for the rich kid just buying its way through then, well…
Sony Vies for Tomb Raider 2 Exclusive - IGN
Executives at Sony are looking to make Tomb Raider 2 an exclusive…www.ign.com
It was actually in production for the Saturn.
See Shellshock's post for more info (the actual announcement from Sony that they reached a deal to make Tomb Raider exclusive):
So how did Sony not buy their way through the industry again? Do you think Final Fantasy was associated with Sony when FFVII came out?
Actually, all you asked for was what other prominent IP Sony had made exclusive recently. I listed one. A major one in fact. So please explain how that's Sony doing things the "right way?"
I mean a someone from Europe Final Fantasy 7 associated Final Fantasy with Sony because unless you Google the other games you had no idea that Final Fantasy 1 to 6 was Nintendo as they never got an official release until the PS1.
That wasn't exactly my point — it did release in both Japan and NA before FFVII. Either way, Sony made those deals. It wasn't born out of some organic growth.
JRPG is just one example of several areas MS finds themselves underrepresenting and they are primarily filling these voids with acquisitions of studios that they have strong relationships with and are most likely to be quick geographical and cultural fits within the organization, and these companies will make games in the areas they are lacking.
I disagree with you in principle. While Bethesda and Activision are known for big hits- the majority of Microsoft's acquisition targets make niche products.
Buying COD doesn't make them any more irreplaceable/irresistible than they were before the acquisition, because they already have COD on their platform.
The reason Xbox is see as replaceable is because they aren't well rounded.
Last edited:
It kinda is though. All of Sony's biggest franchises are from the studios they already owned when these franchises were first greenlighted. After Bethesda, Mojang and Activision deals, Microsoft's top-5 biggest franchises are from old multiplatform studios and they never greenlighted those games themselves in the first place unlike their competition with their known franchises.
Microsoft will always have that image over them where it seems they had to spend more 80 billion dollars to be able to compete with others on the console market. It feels kinda artificial in a industry full of creativity and artists. And I yes I know that is pretty dumb to say considering Nintendo and Sony aren't excactly innocent companies either.
Eh, Destiny is Sony's biggest franchise now. They also don't own Spider-Man. Or the MLB. =P
It won't always seem like this — just looking at Obsidian, they already made Pentiment which Sawyer said wouldn't have been feasible without Game Pass.
Through time, these franchises will feel like a Microsoft franchise… especially as sequels get additional funding or time they may not have otherwise had.
New IP will inevitably be created by these studios too, or brought back.
It's the nature of these things. People already forgot how much Sony itself invested especially when it started to brute force its way through.
Microsoft's acquisition spree is almost like a reboot after much of its studios were gone and it only had Rare, 343i, Coalition, and Mojang. It was during 2015 when Microsoft almost left the industry entirely, so they were underfunded with very few studios. Suddenly they get the backing of the CEO with a new initiative that necessitates steady game content (Game Pass) so it's no wonder they went on an acquisition spree to ramp up.
At the end of the day though, the public at large doesn't care how one console maker grew. They just care about the games and potentially policies/services around those games (games are first obviously, which is the primary reason Microsoft is making these acquisitions).
Last edited:
The western RPG on consoles got it start on Xbox with the help of Bethesda and BioWare. Yeah, it everywhere now including Sony's systems, but Microsoft wasn't a late-comer there, they were first to market. Always seems to be getting lost in this conversation about what's organic.
The only free COD is multiplatform, but I get what you're saying. And yes, I think COD on Gamepass will make the IP more of a differentiator than it has been in the past.
That said, even on Xbox, the vast majority of Xbox players buy their games rather than get them through GP, so there's limits to how many people will switch to Xbox just because COD is available in a sub? Do we expect current PS users to be more interested in playing COD via sub than current Xbox users?
Ultimately, they'll want to be the place for people who like any combination of COD, wrpg, survival, character driven action, jrpg, racing, RTS, co-op shooter, platformer, etc. And not just for Gamepass, but for people who buy games traditionally.
Last edited:
Oh man, ten bucks says he stops responding after this.It's well known and documented. A quick Google search even brought out this IGN article originally posted in 1997. Sorry, rich kid Sony was doing what it could to ensure Sega couldn't compete. They were the rich kid in this scenario. If you are so concerned with not rooting for the rich kid just buying its way through then, well…
Sony Vies for Tomb Raider 2 Exclusive - IGN
Executives at Sony are looking to make Tomb Raider 2 an exclusive…
It was actually in production for the Saturn.
See Shellshock's post for more info (the actual announcement from Sony that they reached a deal to make Tomb Raider exclusive):
So how did Sony not buy their way through the industry again? Do you think Final Fantasy was associated with Sony when FFVII came out?
Actually, all you asked for was what other prominent IP Sony had made exclusive recently. I listed one. A major one in fact. So please explain how that's Sony doing things the "right way?"
This argument on the "right way" is really bogus. Both Microsoft and Sony (and Nintendo, too!) use their money or market position to expand. To say otherwise is just ignoring history of a specific platform for whatever reason.
Yeah, I don't got the willpower to wait for Diablo on GP lol. Gonna buy it day 1 on PS5, that way I'll have it on both systems when the deal goes through (pending the CMA's decision)
I don't think MS cares where people will play CoD as long bas people play CoD. But yes I do think cod will greatly boost gamepass subscribers. As will all of the other AB games that will be on the service.
Cross play and cross progression.
"Before you read further, we are excited to announce that Diablo IV will launch in 2023 on Windows PC, Xbox One X|S, Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 4/5 and will host cross-play and cross-progression for all platforms. "
All Hell Breaks Loose in 2023—Diablo IV is Coming
Diablo IV is set to raise Hell’s temperature to a new level. Join us around the campfire to learn what’s coming in this next generation installment of the Diablo series.
news.blizzard.com
I think we're talking past each other. I may be wrong, but on the matter of system sellers I feel like people are talking about games that push people towards one console over another.
COD is on both Xbox and PS- so it alone isn't going to be the deciding factor for most people.
I also think you're overly focused on the JRPG angle, and not really on the fact that having diversity of content will enhance the appeal of your box beyond having core titles like COD accounted for. If consumer A likes COD +JRPGs, and JRPGs are missing on a particular console, and plentiful on another, they'll go with the latter.
You can replace the "+JRPGs" with any other genre, and the platform with the fewest gaps will be the more favorable COD machine.
Last edited:
You're correct most people aren't. Most people aren't buying consoles to play Redfall or Starfield though. They're buying consoles to play FIFA and COD with their friends. What I'm talking about is communities like ResetEra who pride themselves on playing every single game as soon as they come out, buying another system is not the end of the world.
Indeed. Can't wait tbh, gonna be great having D4 on xCloud.
Cross play and cross progression.
"Before you read further, we are excited to announce that Diablo IV will launch in 2023 on Windows PC, Xbox One X|S, Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 4/5 and will host cross-play and cross-progression for all platforms. "
All Hell Breaks Loose in 2023—Diablo IV is Coming
Diablo IV is set to raise Hell’s temperature to a new level. Join us around the campfire to learn what’s coming in this next generation installment of the Diablo series.
Awesome! Yea, that definitely makes it a good one to get on multiple systems then and it'll really benefit from being able to play anywhere. (Also another example of why ABK's value is not in selling systems, but in attracting players and gaining influence).
I think the problem is what used to work doesn't work anymore.
It takes a long time to make games, like 4x longer and even more than 4x expensive. Devs are in high demand and every big studio is competing to get proven talent.
AAA studios aren't an easy startup, you hardly see it happening. The last successful example I can recall is Respawn and they needed to take a large number of staff from another studio.The best way to make a AAA studio is to get a smaller studio such as Undead Labs and then slowly grow it.
In the digital age we're in, people often get locked into ecosystems. I'm sure there are a number of people who wanted a PS5 because they own 100s, if not 1000s of PS4 games that work with back compatibility. The clock is ticking to get as many people as possible into their ecosystem. This may change in the future one day if cloud becomes the dominant way to play, but let's be real, it could be 10-20 years away.
If Xbox just started creating studios and new IPs back in 2018 it would have taken them 20 years to get where PlayStation is today. And how much bigger would PS be at that time. The Initiative is using an IP with a universe already and it'll probably be 7 years before Perfect Dark releases. How long will AAA games with new IP take in 2030? 10+ years? How is Xbox going to find the 1000s of developers needed to create a bunch of new studios?
I just don't see how the whole organic growth thing makes any sense when you look at the current landscape.
It doesn't. You explained it well.
The scale of gaming has changed. Games today can take at minimum five years to develop now with more budget required than ever before, so you really do need proven talent/studios if you hope to get good results. You can build studios on the side — as Microsoft has done — but you have to also be gaining proven talent with established pipelines.
Even in the earlier days of gaming, Sony and other companies still bought their way in with deals, but the opportunity to build from scratch is almost impossible now. It's why the only companies capable of doing it would be your Googles or Amazons who could buy up publishers/studios.
Sorry to reply late.
They aren't filling that void with their acquisitions, though, unless I'm overlooking some tied to Zenimax. Speaking specifically of Zenimax, I can understand why you would disagree in principle as you may view the Zenimax the same as NT or Obsidian while I'm considering each studio involved per acquisition. In Zenimax's case, with the exception of Tango, each studio specializes in genre-specific strength for the Xbox platform and house multiple big IPs.
I understand you can allow these teams to branch out, form new IP, give new leadership positions to up and coming team members and expand. However, on it's face, the vast majority of their studio acquisitions have filled areas they are strong in. They were already known as the best place to play Skyrim, for example.
Point being, though they have had the time, capital and opportunities from relationships formed in the past to acquire a JRPG studio, they have not all while showing no signs of interest in that timespan. I believe that to be the strongest indicator of their current and overall area of focus in terms of expansion.
Last edited:
It would make no sense for Microsoft to start expanding their audiences by acquiring Japanese studios or publishers without first securing content for their primary markets where they perform better (North America and the UK) and solidify their position there. Which is why their intial expansion has all been focused on those core markets (Bethesda, Activision and their new Xbox Game Studios). For future expansion they've already indicated that most of their creators are in their core market and they'd look to markets that aren't traditional markets for Xbox.
Xbox’s Spencer Sees Progress Toward Activision Deal Approval
Gaming chief also hopes for fewer exclusive titles, more interoperability among consoles in the future
www.bloomberg.com
That definitely would have helped. A full statement on the matter during the first announcement would have helped to nip a lot of this in the bud. They didn't, so it left room for an argument to be made. Microsoft is saying it now, obviously, but saying it at the very beginning would have gotten ahead of all this.
It doesn't matter if it is on both if the people we are talking about are only focused on CoD and maybe one or two big third party games.
We have seen Microsoft and Sony spend loads of money to associate third party games with their systems. A lot of us have probably witnessed situations where someone not as fully aware as us thought a third party game was exclusive because of this association (e.g, a coworker of mine thought Destiny was exclusive to PS4). This all very clearly works because MS and Sony wouldn't keep spending money to do it otherwise. We have seen bundle after bundle with CoD over the years. As such, it really cannot be denied how much sway CoD has in this regard.
I wasn't disputing any of that.
I was disputing the notion that JRPGs by themselves have more selling power than CoD.
I doubt it, they have been signalling this concession since the early days (they were on the phone to Sony day 1 of the announcement).
I think it's pretty clear this isn't about CoD anymore. But trying to stiffle any expansion by any means necessary.
So, he's saying almost exactly what I'm saying? Good, that means I'm not just imagining it.It would make no sense for Microsoft to start expanding their audiences by acquiring Japanese studios or publishers without first securing content for their primary markets where they perform better (North America and the UK) and solidify their position there. Which is why their intial expansion has all been focused on those core markets (Bethesda, Activision and their new Xbox Game Studios). For future expansion they've already indicated that most of their creators are in their core market and they'd look to markets that aren't traditional markets for Xbox.
Xbox’s Spencer Sees Progress Toward Activision Deal Approval
Gaming chief also hopes for fewer exclusive titles, more interoperability among consoles in the future
Their stated goal was expanding the entire gaming audience through acquisitions such as ABK, specifically King according to this thread and MS. Can you explain to me the need to 'solidify' an area where they are already solid? What does that entail, exactly? Closer to parity with competitors? Overtaking?
If the overall attractiveness of a machine is based on the variety of experiences it gives you relative to your competition, why would you ignore your weaknesses to further solidify a strength in a zone of strength, while a sect of the fanbase continues to clamor for experiences that are sparse for years?
Their acquisition targets lead me to 'irreplaceable/irresistible' conclusion, especially when they're focusing in areas they're already solid in.
Not to say that there is anything wrong with shoring up your strengths. Its a very valid form of operation. I just becomes a bit disconnected when its been acknowledged by the higher ups, vocal from the base, yet zero movement in that area.
Last edited:
OP
OP
MLex has a new report about the review process in Japan:
- It is believed that the deal has yet to be formally notified.
- In June 2022, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) called for third-party views about the deal, even though it was at a "Phase I review" (I guess they mean pre-notification talks if it hasn't been notified yet). It was due to a new initiative to seek information about competition concerns in the digital markets at an early stage.
- Similar issues that Western regulators are being analysed (gaming market, cloud gaming, ecosystem advantages, etc).
- There hasn't been an uproar against the planned merger from the Japanese gaming industry or community.
- The JFTC hasn't blocked a deal in decades and usually accepts behavioural remedies
- According to the "2022 CESA Games White Paper," published in August 2022, Nintendo has 74.8%, Sony 23.4% and Microsoft's 1.8% of the Japanese market.
- The JFTC is known to analyse global deals in similar ways as Western regulators and approving the same conditions soon after its peers' decisions.
- The timing of the Japanese review will depend on MS's strategy, but maybe the JFTC wants to avoid affecting the FTC's court battle by giving an early clearance with easy conditions.
- In any case, it's not even clear if the JFTC would announce its decision because they don't have a legal obligation to disclose an initial-review result.
- It is believed that the deal has yet to be formally notified.
- In June 2022, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) called for third-party views about the deal, even though it was at a "Phase I review" (I guess they mean pre-notification talks if it hasn't been notified yet). It was due to a new initiative to seek information about competition concerns in the digital markets at an early stage.
- Similar issues that Western regulators are being analysed (gaming market, cloud gaming, ecosystem advantages, etc).
- There hasn't been an uproar against the planned merger from the Japanese gaming industry or community.
- The JFTC hasn't blocked a deal in decades and usually accepts behavioural remedies
- According to the "2022 CESA Games White Paper," published in August 2022, Nintendo has 74.8%, Sony 23.4% and Microsoft's 1.8% of the Japanese market.
- The JFTC is known to analyse global deals in similar ways as Western regulators and approving the same conditions soon after its peers' decisions.
- The timing of the Japanese review will depend on MS's strategy, but maybe the JFTC wants to avoid affecting the FTC's court battle by giving an early clearance with easy conditions.
- In any case, it's not even clear if the JFTC would announce its decision because they don't have a legal obligation to disclose an initial-review result.
If there is any place on the planet where this deal shouldn't be blocked on the basis of competition it's Japan lol.
I believe the point was Sony has the JRPG genre and CoD compared to Xbox which doesn't have much in the way of JRPG's and PlayStation will continue to have CoD for at least another 10 years. Long story short more people will likely choose a platform that has both.
It's been brought up multiple times but it's either not the same thing or they are not nearly as big or it's a Monday. CoD is also going to remain available at least 10 years as well on PlayStation, so this notion games are being taken away is fear mongering. Nobody yet so far has made any compelling argument why this should not go through other than whataboutisms.
Sony is but PlayStation really isn't and arguably hasn't been for over a decade now.
Again, I think you're only looking at Marque titles built buy the studios they've acquired rather than looking at the totality of their acquisition targets.
they bought ninja theory so they can do better in cinematic third person action.
Undead Labs is focused on permadeath survival, and has a second studio that supports UE5 development across XGS
Compulsion games previously made a moody survival horror game and is reportedly working on a narrative driven SP player action title
Playground games makes open world racers, but were expanded after the acquisition to revive fable- a unique brand of action-RPG that MS had left abandoned for a decade.
InXile makes isometric squad-based RPGs and dungeon crawlers.
Obsidian can do anything- but since acquisition have made a novel kid vs insect survival game and Pentiment, which is so niche I don't even know how to properly describe it.
Double Fine is best known for quirky platformers and actions adventure
Bethesda is the highlight of the Zenimax purchase- but also acquired was Arkane Studios and Tango Gameworks who's games occupy experimental niches.
Then of course there's Activision's COD.
I just don't think it's accurate to say they their acquisitions have primarily been in areas they were already strong in. It's clear they have an interest in expanding niche markets via AAA investment, and also doing better in markets that they haven't done particularly well in, like narrative driven action.
I think you're assuming too much about them Them not going out and buying a Japanese RPG developer. I can't imagine many Japanese RPG developers would be interested in being owned by Microsoft. If I'm MS, I'd probably want my platform to be hospitable for those types of games before I'd ever think about owning such a studio.
Microsoft wants a major Japanese acquisition but I don't expect any movement there until ABK closes next year or possibly later. If they acquired Sega though for example, that'd give them access to a bunch of notable JRPG properties and studios (Yakuza/Judgement, Phantasy Star, Shining, Sakura Wars, Valkyria Chronicles, SMT, Persona, Etrian Odyssey, etc, etc) not to mention even more on the CRPG/RTS end with Sega West's PC focused studios.
The really top JRPG publishers though, more equivalent to say a Bethesda or Blizzard acquisition, are probably out of reach for MS though (Square Enix, Nintendo, Bandai Namco).
The really top JRPG publishers though, more equivalent to say a Bethesda or Blizzard acquisition, are probably out of reach for MS though (Square Enix, Nintendo, Bandai Namco).
Of course it matters if they are on both. This means consumers can choose either one. If players were only focused on COD and two other multiplatform 3rd party games, sales would be nearly identical between the two platforms. What causes deviation is the games that can only be found on one platform or the other.
Some of those "big 3rd party games" are JRPGs. As such, PlayStation would have a significant hardware sales advantage amongst players who like JRPGs. And no significant hardware sales advantage among people who just want to play COD.
Nobody thinks COD is exclusive to PS though. There's obviously some value marketing deals, but the marketing deal hasn't cause Sony to outperform their hardware advantage. Microsoft even cited this as a reason for abandoning the deal in 2015. COD as a multiplatform, crossplay title is not significantly influencing which platform people choose. Which explains why COD only generates 50% more revenue on PS compared to Xbox, despite having a 100% installed base advantage- People who just want to play COD choose Xbox disproportionately often. It's people who want to play COD + other things where PS accrues an advantage.
PS- despite Destiny PS marketing, the Xbox versions vastly outperformed the hardware sales disadvantage. People ultimately knew they could get Destiny on either platform. Destiny + all the other playstation advantages is what made Playstation the better Destiny box.
Like I said, I think this is a matter of folks talking past one another. "By themselves" no. But exclusives (including JRPG exclusives ) will sway the choice of platform more than a multiplat that is known to be available everywhere. Few people are choosing a PlayStation BECAUSE it has COD marketing. If COD is on their radar, consumers favor Playstation because it has COD and other content that only Playstation delivers.
Last edited:
Sony is, PlayStation isn't (a little confusing, I know). I believe Sony in general (the main company) is one of the top 10 brands in Japan. PS is in the low hundred's.
Nah, I would say you have confirmation bias in this instance
The lack of a JRPG acquisition doesn't mean that they are ignoring weaknesses. It means that actions to address this particular weakness aren't publicly known yet. They have other weaknesses that are more readily addressed via acquisition. the environment isn't currently conducive to making a JRPG studio acquisition successful- especially since the target audience is deeply captive on other platforms, but I would expect efforts in the background for strategic partnerships.
Beyond that, the acquisitions have definitely addressed weaknesses as well as shore up strengths.
Last edited:
Sorry, let me rephrase: people don't want to acknowledge that Psygnosis existed.
I know, but what surprises me is that Sony, as the parent company of SIE, has not commented on this in Japan.
So is MS unequivocally guaranteeing CoD on Playstation for 10-years, or is MS offering a 10-year contract to Sony to have CoD be released for 10-years on Playstation? The first happens regardless of what Sony says or does, but the second depends on Sony signing the offer. Right now Sony is rejecting everything.
What if, and it is a big if, this deal is approved by the three big necessary markets, but Sony did not come to an agreement with MS. Can MS then say, nope. That deal was rejected - here is our new offer. ?
What if, and it is a big if, this deal is approved by the three big necessary markets, but Sony did not come to an agreement with MS. Can MS then say, nope. That deal was rejected - here is our new offer. ?
Tencent is government linked right? Why hasn't the Chinese commision blocked deals that could possibly threaten potenti
Theoretically but 1) MS doesn't wanna catch the ire of regulatory bodies and 2) They seem like they genuinely want to keep CoD on PS.
Activision and Xbox effectively doesn't exist in China so it wouldn't matter.
MS will most likely move to ship on PS regardless of a deal with Sony or concessions demanded by regulators. The deal makes less sense if they deny themselves this revenue.
The contract was just a show of good faith in their promise to publish the game on PlayStation.
Last edited:
If Sony rejects and this passes with no remedies MS can tell Sony they will never see an Acti/Blizz game ever again.
Would Ms do that? No.
You know why.
Peoples memory end and begins at MS made RoTR TIMED exclusive
Microsoft could say nope and that would be on Sony for not signing the deal, Microsoft would not be in the wrong. Though Microsoft will continue to release cod on Playstation with or without them signing the deal, Sony isn't signing the deal because it would look good on the deal going through and Sony doesn't want that.